Report of Outcomes Assessment Results€“2016-IACBE-Annual...Program Learning Outcome 3: Be able to use the skills of critical thinking and problem-solving to synthesize the knowledge

Report of Outcomes Assessment Results

Institution North Park University

Academic Business Unit School of Business and Nonprofit Management

Academic Year 2015-2016

International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education

i

Outcomes Assessment Plan Is the outcomes assessment plan that you submitted to the IACBE still current or have you made changes?

The outcomes assessment plan that we have previously submitted is still current.

X Changes have been made and the revised plan is attached.

We have made changes and the revised plan will be sent to the IACBE by:

1

Outcomes Assessment Results For Academic Year: 2015-2016

Section I: Student Learning Assessment

School of Business and Nonprofit Management

Student Learning Assessment for Undergraduate Business Major

General Program Intended Student Learning Outcomes (General Program ISLOs)

1. Program Learning Outcome 1: Understand and apply normative ethical frameworks in workplace decision-making.

2. Program Learning Outcome 2: Demonstrate the ability to work in teams by integrating organizational and management theory to interact effectively with superiors, peers, and subordinates.

3. Program Learning Outcome 3: Be able to use the skills of critical thinking and problem-solving to synthesize the knowledge of business disciplines (e.g. accounting, finance, marketing, operations, management, and economics) in the ethical operation of a business in a global environment.

4. Program Learning Outcome 4: Demonstrate knowledge of basic economic principles, marketing principles, communication, legal issues, operations management and quantitative decision theory, accounting, management (general and nonprofit), leadership, strategy, and financial principles as they apply to the modern global business environment.

5. Program Learning Outcome 5: Be prepared (understand the market, create a resume, demonstrate the ability to interview) for finding employment or seeking higher academic degrees within a reasonable period following completion of their college career.

6. Program Learning Outcome 6: Be able to communicate effectively in business.

Assessment Instruments for Intended Student Learning Outcomes— Direct Measures of Student Learning:

Performance Objectives (Targets/Criteria) for Direct Measures:

1. Direct Measure 1: ETS Standardized Test in Business and Economics

Core ISLOs Assessed by this Measure: 3, 4

The average student score should be at or above the mean scores from other universities and colleges nationally on both the test as a whole and in each sub-section.

2. Direct Measure 2: Peer evaluation on team project

Core ISLOs Assessed by this Measure: 2, 3, 5

90% of student scores on the peer evaluation should be at 85% or above.

3. Direct Measure 3: Local Ethics Test At least 90% will receive either “excellent” or “good” evaluations.

2


4. Direct Measure 4: Faculty evaluation of a mock interview with the student and evaluation of the student’s resume and cover letter


At least 90% will receive either “excellent” or “good” evaluations.

Assessment Instruments for Intended Student Learning Outcomes— Indirect Measures of Student Learning:

Performance Objectives (Targets/Criteria) for Indirect Measures:

1. Indirect Measure 1: Annual Graduating Senior Survey Generally speaking, scores of 70%-100% (“agree” or “strongly agree”) are acceptable and scores under 70% should receive special attention.

2. Indirect Measure 2: Annual Alumni Survey sent to students a year after graduation

Generally speaking, scores of 70%-100% (“agree” or “strongly agree”) are acceptable and scores under 70% should receive special attention.

Assessment Results: Undergraduate Business Major

Summary of Results from Implementing Direct Measures of Student Learning:

1. Summary of Results for Direct Measure 1: The average score on the test on the whole and sub-sections were below the mean.

2. Summary of Results for Direct Measure 2: 95% of students assessed received a team assessment score of 85% or above.

3. Summary of Results for Direct Measure 3: 100% of students assessed scored either “excellent” or “good.”


Summary of Results from Implementing Indirect Measures of Student Learning:

1. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 1: Question 1 addresses the quality of the North Park experience, question 2 addresses the quality of specific skill development, and question 3 addresses overall satisfaction with the program. 70% or more BSE students responded “exceeded expectations”/”met expectations,” “strongly agree”/“agree” or “very good”/”good” in all categories except:

Graphic communication (41%)

Written communication (56%)

Quantitative skills (54%)

3

Leadership skills (69%)

Analytical reasoning and problem-solving skills (68%)

Computer skills (54%)

Research skills (65%)

Business and economic principles (65%)

Multi-cultural awareness (67%)

Integration of Chicago-area resources and speakers (56%)

Integration of business and nonprofit management (57%)

Overall academic rigor of the program (51%)

2. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 2: Only two business alums participated in the survey, which does not provide a valid sample.

Summary of Achievement of Intended Student Learning Outcomes:

Intended Student Learning Outcomes Learning Assessment Measures

Program ISLOs

Direct Measure 1

Direct Measure 2

Direct Measure 3

Direct Measure 4

Indirect Measure 1

Indirect Measure 2

Indirect Measure 3

Indirect Measure 4

Performance Target Was…








1. Program Learning Outcome 1 Met Not Met N/A


3. Program Learning Outcome 3 Not Met Met Not Met N/A

4. Program Learning Outcome 4 Not Met Not Met N/A

5. Program Learning Outcome 5 Met Met Not Met N/A

6. Program Learning Outcome 6 Met Met Not Met N/A

Proposed Courses of Action for Improvement in Learning Outcomes for which Performance Targets Were Not Met:

1. Course of Action 1 – Direct Measure 1: This is one of the primary focus areas of our self-study process. We are contemplating a switch to the Peregrine assessment system in order to use their advanced analysis to focus on the specific content areas in which our students are not meeting our expectations. We plan to move the administration window from April/May to February/March to mitigate motivation issues that may affect motivation to perform. Finally, we will adjust the weight of the exam in the class grade; this year, students were given discretion over the weighting of assignments, which we believe further exacerbated their motivation to perform. We implemented a new undergraduate curriculum in the 2016-2017 school year with several substantive changes, which we believe will improve student performance in the future.

4

2. Course of Action 2 – Indirect Measure 1: Several content areas failed to reach our target; however, this year’s scores are in the range of the last two years (in some cases higher than in past years). Several content areas are within a few percentage points of our target. We implemented a new undergraduate curriculum in the 2016-2017 school year with greater emphasis on business communication skills. A newer member of our faculty, with specific expertise in operations and information technology, is adding additional content to improve students’ quantitative skills and computer skills (Excel specifically). Two members of our faculty are participating in the pilot of the university’s Chicago Intensive program, which will broaden our students’ awareness of multiculturalism and access to Chicago-area resources.

3. Course of Action 3 – Indirect Measure 2: We had low response rates for several years. We worked with our alumni relations department to improve our survey response rate this year; unfortunately, the participation rate did not improve. We plan to eliminate this measure in our new assessment plan.


Student Learning Assessment for Undergraduate Advertising Major




3. Program Learning Outcome 3: Be able to use the skills of critical thinking and problem-solving to synthesize the knowledge of advertising disciplines (e.g. marketing, consumer behavior, creative strategy, etc.) in the ethical operation of a business in a global environment.

4. Program Learning Outcome 4: Demonstrate knowledge of basic marketing principles, art design, media studies, public relations concepts, consumer behavior, economics, copywriting, and creative strategy as they apply to the modern global business environment.





1. Direct Measure 1: Portfolio Assignment which incorporates understanding of marketing and advertising principles into creative strategy and execution

Core ISLOs Assessed by this Measure: 2, 3, 4, 6


5

2. Direct Measure 2: Local Ethics Test








1. Indirect Measure 1: Annual Graduating Senior Survey Generally speaking, scores of 70%-100% (“agree” or “strongly agree”) are acceptable and scores under 70% should receive special attention.



Assessment Results: Undergraduate Advertising Major






1. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 1: No advertising students participated in the survey.

2. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 2: No advertising alums participated in the survey.



6

Program ISLOs

Direct Measure 1

Direct Measure 2

Direct Measure 3

Direct Measure 4

Indirect Measure 1

Indirect Measure 2

Indirect Measure 3

Indirect Measure 4









1. Program Learning Outcome 1 Met N/A N/A





6. Program Learning Outcome 6 Met Met Met N/A N/A


1. Course of Action 1 – Indirect Measure 1: We will target our advertising majors with additional communication during the survey window to solicit their participation.



Student Learning Assessment for Undergraduate Nonprofit Management Major

Program Intended Student Learning Outcomes (Program ISLOs)



3. Program Learning Outcome 3: Be able to use the skills of critical thinking and problem-solving to synthesize the knowledge of nonprofit management disciplines in the ethical operation of a business in a global environment.

4. Program Learning Outcome 4: Demonstrate knowledge of the following content areas: Mission & Program, Leadership & Governance, Strategy & Innovation, Human Resource, Financial Strength & Performance, Resource Generation & External Relations, and Accountability & Integrity as they apply to the nonprofit sector.

7





1. Direct Measure 1: Capstone project and paper, which synthesizes student learning about the Hallmarks for Nonprofit Managerial Excellence and effective team leadership strategies.

Core ISLOs Assessed by this Measure: 2, 3, 4, 6

With “excellent” being the highest rating, at least 90% will achieve a rating of “good” or higher.

2. Direct Measure 2: Local Ethics Test








1. Indirect Measure 1: Annual Graduating Senior Survey Scores of 70%-100% (“very good”/“good” or “strongly agree”/”agree” responses) are acceptable and scores under 70% should receive special attention and a specific action plan.


Scores of 70%-100% (“very good”/”good” or “strongly agree”/“agree”) are acceptable and scores under 70% should receive special attention and a specific action plan.

Assessment Results: Undergraduate Nonprofit Management Major


1. Summary of Results for Direct Measure 1: This was the pilot year of the assessment. Scores will be included in next year’s report.




8

1. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 1: Three nonprofit management students participated in the survey, which does not provide a valid sample.

2. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 2: No nonprofit management alums participated in the survey, which does not provide a valid sample.



Program ISLOs

Direct Measure 1

Direct Measure 2

Direct Measure 3

Direct Measure 4

Indirect Measure 1

Indirect Measure 2

Indirect Measure 3

Indirect Measure 4










2. Program Learning Outcome 2 N/A N/A N/A




6. Program Learning Outcome 6 N/A Met Met N/A N/A


1. Course of Action 1 – Indirect Measure 1: We will target our nonprofit majors with additional communication during the survey window to solicit their participation.



Student Learning Assessment for Master of Business Administration


9

1. Program Learning Outcome 1: Demonstrate the ability to work in diverse teams by integrating organizational and management theory to contribute to the successful completion of team objectives, in a participatory and/or leadership role.

2. Program Learning Outcome 2: Demonstrate an understanding and an ability to apply normative ethical frameworks in workplace decision-making.

3. Program Learning Outcome 3: Demonstrate the ability to collect, analyze, and discern quantitative and qualitative data into an appropriate format for use in problem-solving and managerial decision-making.

4. Program Learning Outcome 4: Demonstrate knowledge of core subject areas – organizational behavior and ethics, leadership, finance, accounting, marketing, microeconomics, macroeconomics, strategic management, statistics, and forecasting – as they apply to the modern global management environment.

5. Program Learning Outcome 5: Demonstrate self-awareness of personality, of leadership styles, and/or values as they relate to ethical management practices.

6. Program Learning Outcome 6: Demonstrate oral and written communication skills as they relate to the responsible participation in an organization – with focus at the managerial level.



1. Direct Measure 1: Simulation experience required for capstone course


At least 90% of students will score above 50% in the simulation.



At least 90% of scores on the team evaluation will be 85% or above.

3. Direct Measure 3: Ethical leadership paper


At least 90% of students will receive either “excellent” or “good” evaluations.



1. Indirect Measure 1: Annual Graduate Student Program Evaluation Generally speaking, scores of 70%-100% (“agree” or “strongly agree”) are acceptable and scores under 70% should receive special attention.

10



Assessment Results: Master of Business Administration


1. Summary of Results for Direct Measure 1: 81% students assessed received a score of 50% or above.


3. Summary of Results for Direct Measure 3: 86% of students assessed scored “excellent” or “good.”


1. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 1: Questions 10 and 11 address satisfaction with the academic program and the faculty and Question 13 addresses the quality of the North Park program. At least 70% of survey participants responded “very good”/“good” or “strongly agree”/“agree” with the factors measured in all categories except:

Integration of Chicago (69%)

National reputation (58%)

2. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 2: Only one MBA alum participated in the survey, which does not provide a valid sample.



General Program ISLOs

Direct Measure 1

Direct Measure 2

Direct Measure 3

Direct Measure 4

Indirect Measure 1

Indirect Measure 2

Indirect Measure 3

Indirect Measure 4














6. Program Learning Outcome 6 Not Met Met Not Met N/A


11

1. Course of Action 1 – Direct Measure 1: Our capstone course and assessment are critical components of the MBA program. We implemented a new version of the curriculum in August 2015 that divided the capstone content into two classes: SBNM 5992: Strategy for Competitive Advantage and SBNM 5993: MBA Capstone. We believe this will allow students to spend more time practicing their strategy skills and will improve their scores on the capstone simulation.

2. Course of Action 2 – Direct Measure 3: Scores continue to improve in this area and we are within range of our target. We are in the process of reframing our ethics outcomes and measurement as part of our self-study process.

3. Course of Action 3 – Indirect Measure 1: Our faculty increased the number of Chicago-area guest speakers in the last year. We will continue to emphasize the importance of using subject matter experts from the surrounding area and using Chicago-based organizations as examples in our coursework. The university’s Chicago Intensive program, while focused on our undergraduate program, will increase faculty awareness of and emphasis on Chicago-area organizations. We believe this will increase the incorporation of these resources in our undergraduate and graduate courses.



Student Learning Assessment for Master of Nonprofit Administration





4. Program Learning Outcome 4: Demonstrate knowledge of core subject areas – organizational behavior and ethics, leadership, human resources, nonprofit principles, nonprofit finance, nonprofit marketing, nonprofit strategic management, measuring outcomes and assessment, fundraising, legal issues, board governance, and volunteer management – as they apply to the modern nonprofit management environment.



12



1. Direct Measure 1: Paper required for capstone course














Assessment Results: Master of Nonprofit Administration






13

1. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 1: Questions 10 and 11 address satisfaction with the academic program and the faculty and Question 13 addresses the quality of the North Park program. At least 70% of survey participants responded “very good”/“good” or “strongly agree”/“agree” with the factors measured in all categories.

2. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 2: Only four MNA alums participated in the survey, which does not provide a valid sample.




Direct Measure 1

Direct Measure 2

Direct Measure 3

Direct Measure 4

Indirect Measure 1

Indirect Measure 2

Indirect Measure 3

Indirect Measure 4









1. Program Learning Outcome 1 Not Met Met N/A


3. Program Learning Outcome 3 Met Met N/A

4. Program Learning Outcome 4 Met Met N/A


6. Program Learning Outcome 6 Met Not Met Met N/A


1. Course of Action 1 – Direct Measure 2: We reviewed the team-focused content in our program as part of our self-study process. While we prioritize teamwork and team leadership in our courses, we do not require specific instruction in this area in our MNA program. We plan to remove this objective and measure in our next assessment plan. We will continue to encourage our students to take our team leadership course.

2. Course of Action 2 – Direct Measure 3: We are within range of our target. We are in the process of reframing our ethics outcomes and measurement as part of our self-study process.



Student Learning Assessment for Master of Higher Education Administration

14





4. Program Learning Outcome 4: Demonstrate knowledge of core subject areas – organizational behavior and ethics, leadership, nonprofit finance, nonprofit marketing, higher education principles, higher education organization and governance, the contemporary college student, curriculum development, law of higher education, fundraising, measuring outcomes and assessment, and strategic management – as they apply to the modern higher education management environment.














15






Assessment Results: Master of Higher Education Administration






1. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 1: Only one MHEA student participated in the survey, which does not provide a valid sample.

2. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 2: Only one MHEA alum participated in the survey, which does not provide a valid sample.




Direct Measure 1

Direct Measure 2

Direct Measure 3

Direct Measure 4

Indirect Measure 1

Indirect Measure 2

Indirect Measure 3

Indirect Measure 4










2. Program Learning Outcome 2 Not Met N/A N/A




6. Program Learning Outcome 6 Met Met N/A N/A


16

1. Course of Action 1 – Direct Measure 3: We are in the process of reframing our ethics outcomes and measurement as part of our self-study process.

2. Course of Action 2 – Indirect Measure 1: We will work with our capstone course instructor to administer the survey in class, which we believe will improve our response rate.



Student Learning Assessment for Master of Human Resource Management





4. Program Learning Outcome 4: Demonstrate knowledge of core subject areas – organizational behavior and ethics, leadership, human resource management, strategic human resources planning, diversity, negotiation, talent development and retention, building high performance teams, employment law, compensation and benefits administration, strategy and metrics in human resource management, change management, and organizational communications – as they apply to the modern higher education management environment.








17












Assessment Results: Master of Human Resource Management



2. Summary of Results for Direct Measure 2: No MHRM students participated in this assessment in the 2015-2016 school year.

3. Summary of Results for Direct Measure 3: No MHRM students participated in this assessment in the 2015-2016 school year.


1. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 1: Only two MHRM students participated in the survey, which does not provide a valid sample.

2. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 2: No MHRM alums participated in the survey.



General Program ISLOs Direct

Measure 1 Direct

Measure 2 Direct

Measure 3 Direct

Measure 4 Indirect

Measure 1 Indirect

Measure 2 Indirect

Measure 3 Indirect

Measure 4

18
















1. Course of Action 1 – Direct Measure 2: We experienced reporting errors in attempting to collect this data; we will redouble our efforts to collect this data in the 2016-2017 school year. Faculty are reviewing alternative assessments as part of our self-study process.




Student Learning Assessment for Master of Organizational Leadership

Program Intended Student Learning Outcomes (Program ISLOs)




4. Program Learning Outcome 4: Demonstrate knowledge of core subject areas – organizational behavior and ethics, leadership, talent development, team building, change management, group facilitation, program evaluation, and strategic planning – as they apply to the modern global management environment.

19





1. Direct Measure 1: Organizational action plan required for capstone course











1. Indirect Measure 1: Annual Graduate Student Program Evaluation Scores of 70%-100% (“very good”/“good” or “strongly agree”/”agree” responses) are acceptable and scores under 70% should receive special attention and a specific action plan.


Scores of 70%-100% (“very good”/“good” or “strongly agree”/”agree” responses) are acceptable and scores under 70% should receive special attention and a specific action plan.

Learning Assessment Results: Master of Organizational Leadership


1. Summary of Results for Direct Measure 1: This was the pilot year of the assessment. Scores will be included in next year’s report.




20

1. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 1: No MOL students participated in the survey.

2. Summary of Results for Indirect Measure 2: No MOL alums participated in the survey.



Program ISLOs

Direct Measure 1

Direct Measure 2

Direct Measure 3

Direct Measure 4

Indirect Measure 1

Indirect Measure 2

Indirect Measure 3

Indirect Measure 4














6. Program Learning Outcome 6 N/A Not Met N/A N/A


1. Course of Action 1 – Direct Measure 2: We experienced reporting errors in attempting to collect this data; we will redouble our efforts to collect this data in the 2016-2017 school year. Faculty are reviewing alternative assessments as part of our self-study process.

2. Course of Action 2 – Direct Measure 3: The MOL program began in August 2015 and only two students participated in the assessment in the 2015-2016 school year. We are in the process of reframing our ethics outcomes and measurement as part of our self-study process.



21

Section II: Operational Assessment (Note: Complete this section only if you received first-time accreditation or reaffirmation of accreditation after

January 1, 2011.)


Operational Assessment

Intended Operational Outcomes:

1. Intended Operational Outcome 1: Over the past few years the number of students who “stop out” and do not finish their intended program have been tracked. We would like to reduce the number of “stop outs” to the lowest level possible. (Measure 1)

2. Intended Operational Outcome 2: Our objective is to be as efficient as possible within the context of student satisfaction in scheduling classes. (Measures 2, 3, 4)

3. Intended Operational Outcome 3: Keeping curriculum up-to-date is a never-ending process. Our goal is to constantly refresh our degree programs and other certificates to reflect new knowledge, the need for consistency in topics across different instructors, improved pedagogy, and changing student interest. (Measure 5)

4. Intended Operational Outcome 4: North Park focuses on teaching and learning. We aim to provide the best learning experience possible, given our resources, for our students in both the graduate and undergraduate programs. (Measure 6)

5. Intended Operational Outcome 5: Our goal is to develop a strong pool of adjuncts to pick from in each content area and to follow a high-quality process in hiring and orienting adjunct instructors. (Measure 7)

6. Intended Operational Outcome 6: Our objective is to balance our expense budget each year and provide a healthy surplus of revenue over expenses for use by the central administration. (Measure 8)

7. Intended Operational Outcome 7: Our facilities need to be at a level of quality to allow for learning and teaching to occur. Students should leave North Park with a positive view of the facilities so as to pass that information along to potential new students they might meet. (Measures 3, 4)

8. Intended Operational Outcome 8: We aim to restrict our graduate courses to students who have an academic background that would fit our program. (Measures 4, 9)

9. Intended Operational Outcome 9: Our goal for enrollment in our undergraduate major courses is to remain steady over the coming years. At the graduate level we are trying to grow quickly as possible within the resource constraints of the university, student quality, and the general market for graduate business and nonprofit management education. (Measures 10, 11)

10. Intended Operational Outcome 10: Chicago is our classroom and all Chicagoans are our teachers. Our goal at North Park and SBNM is to engage the people, corporations, and nonprofit organizations of Chicago as we teach them. (Measures 3, 4, 12, 13)

11. Intended Operational Outcome 11: SBNM seeks to be a globally recognized leader of integrated – business and nonprofit – management education. (Measures 3, 4)

22

Assessment Measures/Methods for Intended Operational Outcomes: Performance Objectives (Targets/Criteria) for Operational Assessment Measures/Methods:

1. Operational Assessment Measure/Method 1

Annual Stop Out Report

Objective (Target/Criterion) for Measure/Method 1

We intend to achieve graduate retention rate of 75% of better / stop out rate of 25% of less. We measure the percent of graduate students who have stopped out by looking at the recruitment class from one year out. To calculate, we look at past year’s recruitment class. After removing those students who completed their program (either degree or certificate), we determine the percentage of students who are no longer enrolled in class as of January of the current year.

Intended Operational Outcomes Assessed by this Measure: 1


Classroom Efficiency Report


Regarding classroom efficiency, we aim to have 70% of our classes at 70% capacity. Efficiency is measured by determining the number of section offerings with enrollment at 70% or more of the cap.



Annual Graduating Senior Survey

Intended Operational Outcomes Assessed by these Measures: 2, 7, 10, 11


1) The graduating senior survey for undergraduates includes three questions that measure student satisfaction relative to (1) offering enough courses, (2) offering courses at convenient times, and (3) appropriateness of class size. Scores for the three questions in this category should be over 70% of the respondents reporting satisfaction “almost always” or “mostly.”

2) We ask undergraduate students about the quality of campus facilities including (1) Helwig Recreation Center (2) Campus Computer Facilities (3) Campus Library (4) Magnuson Center (5) Carlson Classrooms and (6) Johnson Center. We expect at least 70% of respondents to submit a “very good” or “good” rating on questions related to campus facilities on the graduating senior survey.

3) At least 70% of undergraduate students should respond “very good,” “good,” or “slightly good” to the question related to engagement with Chicago.

4) At least 70% of undergraduate students should respond “very good” or “good” or “slightly good” on the question related to the successful integration of business and nonprofit management.

23


Annual Graduate Student Program Evaluation

Intended Operational Outcomes Assessed by these Measures: 2, 7, 8, 10, 11


1) The graduate student program evaluation incudes four questions that measure student satisfaction relative to (1) offering enough courses, (2) offering courses at convenient times, (3) offering courses at convenient locations, and (4) appropriate of class size. Scores for the four questions in this category should be over 70% of the respondents reporting satisfaction “almost always” or “mostly.”

2) We ask graduate students about the quality of campus facilities including (1) Helwig Recreation Center (2) Campus Computer Facilities (3) Campus Library (4) Magnuson Center (5) Carlson Classrooms (6) Johnson Center and (7) Grayslake Campus. We expect at least 70% of respondents to submit a “very good” or “good” rating on questions related to campus facilities.

3) Our goal is to have at least 70% of respondents submit an “almost always” or “mostly” rating on the question relating to peer preparedness and qualifications.

4) At least 70% of graduate students should respond “very good,” “good,” or “average” to the question related to engagement with Chicago.

5) At least 70% of graduate students should respond “almost always” or “mostly” on the question related to the successful integration of business and nonprofit management.


Curriculum Change Report


1) Both our undergraduate and graduate programs should be refreshed every five years on a rotating basis. Our goal is to consistently refresh our degree programs and other certificates to reflect new knowledge, the need for consistency in topics across different instructors, improved pedagogy, and changing student interest.

2) Every two years we should introduce at least one new topics course that may be integrated into our core program or support full programs in new areas.



End-of-Course Instructor Evaluations


We assess each course in our program using the IDEA evaluation system. We look to see if students successfully met their learning outcomes and whether the professors taught effectively. After removing any

24


statistically unreliable results, our goal is to have 85% of our course assessment results above the “much lower” category (for every sub-category on the form) on the summary IDEA sheet.


Annual Evaluation of Adherence to Hiring/Onboarding Process for Adjunct Faculty


Our goal is to complete the following hiring/onboarding process for 95% of our adjunct faculty hires each year. The process includes: (1) candidate search that includes at least one highly-capable candidate not closely affiliated with North Park (2) interview that includes a content expert from SBNM faculty or staff (3) references checked before hiring (4) observation of presentation ability (5) providing materials to the new adjunct for orientation including handbook, viewbook, book on how to teach (6) new adjunct participates in the North Park orientation program (7) the new adjunct is visited in the classroom (or online) during the middle of their first course (8) conference to review the adjunct’s teaching evaluation (IDEA form) after teaching his or her first course.



Annual Budget

Objective (Target/Criterion) for Measure/Method 8 1) Expenses should be less than 105% of budged expenses. 2) Tuition revenue should be above 95% of revenue projection.



Graduate Student Transcripts from Prior Institutions

Objective (Target/Criterion) for Measure/Method 9 Our goal is for at least 70% of our incoming graduate students to have a GPA of 3.0 or higher in their previous educational experiences.



Undergraduate Student Enrollment


Objective (Target/Criterion) for Measure 10

Our undergraduate enrollment should be 550 enrollments or higher per semester.


Graduate Student Enrollment


Objective (Target/Criterion) for Measure 11 Our graduate enrollment should grow by at least 5% each year.


Record of Chicago-area Guest Speakers


25

Intended Operational Outcomes Assessed by this Measure: 10 We track the number of guest speakers in our classes. We aim to have at least 25 guest speakers each year.


Minutes from SBNM Advisory Board Meetings


Objective (Target/Criterion) for Measure/Method 13 We aim to have at least two SBNM Advisory Board Meetings each year with at least 15 board members in attendance at each meeting.

Summary of Results from Implementing Operational Assessment Measures/Methods:

1. Summary of Results for Measure/Method 1: Stop Out Report

The stop out rate for students one year out during the 2015-2016 academic year was 29%.

2. Summary of Results for Measure/Method 2: Classroom Efficiency Report

46% of our undergraduate and graduate classes combined were filled to at least 70% of capacity.

3. Summary of Results for Measure/Method 3: Annual Graduating Senior Survey

1) In the undergraduate survey, all scores regarding course offerings were above the 70% threshold except for courses being offered at convenient times.

2) In the undergraduate survey, scores for Campus Computer Facilities, SBNM Administrative Offices, Magnuson Center, and Carlson Classrooms were below 70%. All other scores were above 70%.

3) 57% of undergraduate students responded “very good” or “good” regarding successful engagement with Chicago.

4) 56% of undergraduate students responded “very good” or “good” regarding the successful integration of business and nonprofit management.

4. Summary of Results for Measure/Method 4: Annual Graduate Student Program Evaluation

1) In the graduate evaluation, scores were above the 70% threshold regarding course offerings.

2) In the graduate evaluation, scores for Magnuson Center and Carlson Classrooms were below 70%. All other scores were above 70%.

3) 90% of students responded “almost always” or “mostly” regarding peer preparedness.

4) 75% of graduate students responded “very good” or “good” regarding successful engagement with Chicago.

5) 100% of graduate students surveyed responded “almost always” or “mostly” regarding the successful integration of business and nonprofit management.

5. Summary of Results for Measure/Method 5: Curriculum Change Report

1) Undergrad: 2008-2009 review; 2015-2016 review

2) Graduate: 2007-2008 review; 2013-2014 review

3) SBNM 5910: Health Principles of Operations Leadership offered in Summer 2016.

26

6. Summary of Results for Measure/Method 6: End-of-Course Instructor Evaluations

80% of course assessments were above the “much lower” category.

7. Summary of Results for Measure/Method 7: Hiring/Onboarding Process

91% of our adjunct faculty hires completed the full hiring, onboarding, and evaluation process in 2015-2016.

8. Summary of Results for Measure/Method 8: Annual Budget

1) 2015-2016 actual expenditures were 5.6% over budgeted expectations.

2) 2015-2016 actual revenue was 3% higher than projected revenue.

9. Summary of Results for Measure/Method 9: Graduate Student Transcriptions from Prior Institutions

70% of our incoming graduate students have a GPA of 3.0 or higher from their previous education.

10. Summary of Results for Measure/Method 10: Undergraduate Student Enrollment

Undergrad enrollment: 751 in the Fall Semester and 853 in the Spring Semester

11. Summary of Results for Measure/Method 11: Graduate Student Enrollment

Graduate enrollment: statistically flat from last year

12. Summary of Results for Measure/Method 12: Record of Chicago-area Guest Speakers

Our classes included over 25 guest speakers during the 2015-2016 academic year.

13. Summary of Results for Measure/Method 13: Minutes from SBNM Advisory Board Meetings

We held two Advisory Board meetings during the 2015-2016 academic year. Each meeting had fifteen or more board members in attendance.

Summary of Achievement of Intended Operational Outcomes:

Intended Operational Outcomes

Operational Assessment Measures/Methods

Operational Assessment Measure/ Method 1




Operational Assessment

Measure Method 5












1. Intended Operational Outcome 1 Not Met

2. Intended Operational Outcome 2 Not Met Not Met Met

3. Intended Operational Outcome 3 Met

27




7. Intended Operational Outcome 7 Not Met Not Met


9. Intended Operational Outcome 9

10. Intended Operational Outcome 10 Not Met Met

11. Intended Operational Outcome 11 Not Met Met

Summary of Achievement of Intended Operational Outcomes:

Intended Operational Outcomes

Operational Assessment Measures/Methods



















20. Intended Operational Outcome 9 Met Not Met

28

21. Intended Operational Outcome 10 Met Met


29

Proposed Courses of Action for Improvement in Operational Outcomes for which Performance Targets Were Not Met:

1. Course of Action – Outcome 1: Our Graduate Advisor continues to develop new methods of engaging with students including developing a new online and face to face orientation this fall. She also works proactively with probation students to create course plans that fit their learning styles and communicates on an individual basis during enrollment season.

2. Course of Action – Outcome 2: We continue to prioritize healthy class sizes and use student data to inform decisions about class offerings. Our administrative team reviews enrollment reports on a weekly basis in an effort to monitor trends in enrollment and improve our course offerings in the upcoming term. We also use student program data and student surveys to gauge interest in specific courses and ensure that we’re offering courses that will support our five graduate programs and students on both campuses and online.

4. Course of Action – Outcomes 4 and 5: We’ve hired two replacement full-time faculty members and one new full-time faculty member in the last two years, which should continue to improve our efforts in this area. Our Director of Operations launched a classroom visit and online course check-in program this fall to better monitor adjunct performance.

6. Course of Action – Outcome 6: We were slightly above our target due to accounting practices at the institutional level.

7. Course of Action – Outcome 7: We continue to request new/updated classroom space from University administration recognizing the impact of the classroom environment on learning potential. The university opened a new classroom/student life building in 2014 and our students and faculty enjoy the opportunity to learn/teach in the new facility. While many of our graduate and undergraduate courses are taught in the new space, some of our classes meet in older buildings on campus and our evaluations reflect student dissatisfaction with these facilities.

8. Course of Action – Outcome 9: We are working with the University Marketing and Communication team to develop new marketing materials for our graduate programs. We believe this will have a positive impact on our recruiting quality candidates and our enrollment rate in the future.

9. Course of Action – Outcomes 10 and 11: While our graduate student responses exceeded our expectations, we were shy of our benchmark at the undergraduate level. As part of the undergraduate curriculum implemented this fall, our finance students will be required to take a course in nonprofit accounting and our accounting students will be encouraged to take the course. We believe this will assist our students in understanding the connection between the sectors. North Park is piloting a new Chicago-focused initiative this year that will enhance the awareness and use of Chicago area experiences in our curriculum. Two of our faculty are participating in the pilot, which will include several of our undergraduate students.

Documents

Report of Outcomes Assessment Results€“2016-IACBE-Annual...Program Learning Outcome 3: Be able to use the skills of critical thinking and problem-solving to synthesize the knowledge